The suit, filed on the day President Bush signed the ClassAction Fairness Act into law, alleges that the Canadian businesschose to forego time-consuming negotiations with them and otherclass members. Instead, 360 Networks entered into quickagreements with other companies, such as railroad, pipeline,energy and other utility companies, and paid them millions toconstruct its fiber optic network. The suit further alleges intheir complaint that the company installed thousands of miles oftelecommunication conduits or fiber optic cable throughout theUnited States, including Illinois, in land subject to right-of-way easements.

Legal experts point out that potential class members consist ofmore than 1,000 current and former owners of the right-of-wayland throughout the United States. The plaintiffs and theclass, who are seeking a declaration that 360 Networks has nolegal rights to exercise dominion and control over their right-of-way land, allege they have suffered actual damages resultingfrom 360 Networks' trespassing, in an amount to be proven attrial, plus punitive damages for fraud, malice, intentional,willful or wanton conduct and reckless disregard of theirrights.

The class will be represented by Mark Goldenberg and ElizabethHeller of Goldenberg, Miller, Heller & Antognoli of Edwardsvilleand John Massopust and Daniel Millea of Zelle, Hofmann, Voelbel,Mason & Gette of Minneapolis along with firms from WashingtonDC, Indianapolis, Waltham MA.

AFRAH PASTRIES: Recalls 2265 lbs. Pastries For Undeclared Wheat---------------------------------------------------------------Afrah Pastries of Richardson, Texas is recalling approximately2265 lbs of pastries because they contain undeclared wheat,dairy, eggs, tree nuts and the colors Yellow #5 and Yellow #6.People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to wheat,dairy, eggs, and/or tree nuts run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products.

The recall products were distributed to consumers nationwidethrough phone and Internet sales. The recall includes all boxsizes of the following products. All products are labeled on thetop of the box with the Afrah Pastries Logo and productdescription.

No illnesses have been reported to date. The recall is beingmade with the knowledge of the US Food and Drug Administration.

Consumers are urged to determine if they have any of thesepastries. All affected product should be returned via parcelpost to Afrah Pastries, 314 E. Main Street, Richardson, Texas75081. Customers will be reimbursed for returned goods andpostage. Customers with questions may contact the company at1-800-99-AFRAH or by e-mail at info@afrah.com.

AMERICAN AIRLINES: Travel Agencies File CA RICO Violations Suit---------------------------------------------------------------American Airlines, Inc. continues to face a class action filedin the United States District Court for the Central District ofCalifornia, Western Division, styled "Westways World Travel,Inc. v. AMR Corp., et al." The suit also names as defendants:

(1) AMR Corporation,

(2) AMR Eagle Holding Corporation,

(3) Airlines Reporting Corporation, and

(4) the Sabre Group Holdings, Inc.

The lawsuit alleges that requiring travel agencies to pay debitmemos to American for violations of American's fare rules (bycustomers of the agencies):

(i) breaches the Agent Reporting Agreement between American and AMR Eagle and the plaintiffs;

The certified class includes all travel agencies who have beenor will be required to pay money to American for debit memos forfare rules violations from July 26, 1995 to the present. Theplaintiffs seek to enjoin the Company from enforcing the pricingrules in question and to recover the amounts paid for debitmemos, plus treble damages, attorneys' fees, and costs.

The suit is styled "Westway World Travel v. AMR Corp, et al,case no. 99-cv-07689-WDK-AIJ," filed in the United StatesDistrict Court for the Central District of California, underJudge William D. Keller.

AMERICAN AIRLINES: Appeals Court Okays Antitrust Suit Dismissal---------------------------------------------------------------The United States Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lowercourt's dismissal of the class action filed against AmericanAirlines and over 15 other airline companies, styled "Hall, etal. v. United Airlines, et al."

The suit, initially filed in the United States District Courtfor the Eastern District of North Carolina, alleged that between1995 and the present, the defendants conspired to reducecommissions paid to U.S.-based travel agents in violation ofSection1 of the Sherman Act. The plaintiffs are seekingmonetary damages and injunctive relief.

The court granted class action certification to the plaintiffson September 17, 2002, defining the plaintiff class as alltravel agents in the United States, Puerto Rico, and the UnitedStates Virgin Islands, who, at any time from October 1, 1997 tothe present, issued tickets, miscellaneous change orders, orprepaid ticket advices for travel on any of the defendantairlines. The case was stayed as to US Airways and UnitedAirlines, since they filed for bankruptcy. Defendant carriersfiled a motion for summary judgment on December 10, 2002, whichthe court granted on October 30, 2003.

On May 13, 2002, the named plaintiffs in "Always Travel, et. al.v. Air Canada, et. al." filed a statement of claim, allegingthat between 1995 and the present, the Company, the otherdefendant airlines, and the International Air TransportAssociation conspired to reduce commissions paid to Canada-basedtravel agents in violation of Section45 of the Competition Actof Canada. The named plaintiffs sought monetary damages andinjunctive relief and to certify a nationwide class of travelagents.

AMERICAN AIRLINES: Court Dismisses Without Prejudice RICO Suit--------------------------------------------------------------The United States District Court for the Central District ofCalifornia, Western Division dismissed the class action filedagainst American Airlines, Inc., styled "All World ProfessionalTravel Services, Inc. v. American Airlines, Inc."

The lawsuit alleges that requiring travel agencies to pay debitmemos for refunding tickets after September 11, 2001:

(1) breaches the Agent Reporting Agreement between American and plaintiff;

The alleged class includes all travel agencies who have or willbe required to pay moneys to American for an "administrativeservice charge," "penalty fee," or other fee for processingrefunds on behalf of passengers who were unable to use theirtickets in the days immediately following the resumption of aircarrier service after the tragedies on September 11, 2001.

On April 1, 2004, the court denied plaintiff's motion for classcertification. On October 14, 2004, an amended class actioncomplaint was filed. On January 12, 2005, the court dismissedthe action without prejudice.

The suit is styled "All World Prof, et al v. American Airlines,case no. 5:02-cv-00849-RT-SGL," filed in the United StatesDistrict Court for the Central District of California, underJudge Robert J. Timlin.

AMERICAN AIRLINES: Travel Agents Launch Unfair Trade Suit in NY---------------------------------------------------------------American Airlines, Inc. faces a class action filed in the UnitedStates District Court for the Southern District of New York,styled "Power Travel International, Inc. v. American Airlines,Inc., et al." The suit also names as defendants ContinentalAirlines, Delta Air Lines, United Airlines, and NorthwestAirlines.

The suit alleges that the Company and the other defendantsbreached their contracts with the agency and were unjustlyenriched when these carriers at various times reduced their basecommissions to zero. The as yet uncertified class includes alltravel agencies accredited by the Airlines Reporting Corporation"whose base commissions on airline tickets were unilaterallyreduced to zero by" the defendants. The case is stayed as toUnited Airlines, since it filed for bankruptcy.

The suit is styled "Power Travel Intl. v. American Airlines, etal, case no. 1:02-cv-07434-RWS," filed in the United StatesDistrict Court for the Southern District of New York under JudgeRobert W. Sweet.

AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces Four Breach of Privacy Suits in TX, NY---------------------------------------------------------------American Airlines, Inc. faces four class actions filed in Texasand New York federal courts, arising from the disclosure ofpassenger name records by a vendor of American. The cases are:

(1) Kimmell v. AMR, et al. (U. S. District Court, Texas),

(2) Baldwin v. AMR, et al. (U. S. District Court, Texas),

(3) Rosenberg v. AMR, et al. (U. S. District Court, New York) and

(4) Anapolsky v. AMR, et al. (U.S. District Court, New York).

The Kimmell suit was filed in April 2004. The Baldwin andRosenberg cases were filed in May 2004. The Anapolsky suit wasfiled in September 2004. The suits allege various causes ofaction, including but not limited to, violations of theElectronic Communications Privacy Act, negligentmisrepresentation, breach of contract and violation of allegedcommon law rights of privacy. In each case plaintiffs seekstatutory damages of $1000 per passenger, plus additionalunspecified monetary damages.

AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces Unjust Enrichment Suits in NY, OK, MA--------------------------------------------------------------American Airlines, Inc. faces three class actions filedOklahoma, New York and Massachusetts courts, arising fromallegedly improper failure to refund certain governmental taxesand fees collected by the Company upon the sale of nonrefundabletickets when such tickets are not used for travel. The suitsare styled:

(2) Hayes v. American Airlines, Inc., case no. 04-3231, pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The Hayes Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, declaratory judgment, costs, attorneys' fees, and interest.

The suits assert various causes of action, including breach ofcontract, conversion, and unjust enrichment.

AMERICAN AIRLINES: Attendants Launch RICO Violations Suit in NY---------------------------------------------------------------American Airlines, Inc. and the Association of ProfessionalFlight Attendants (APFA), the union which represents theCompany's attendants, face an amended consolidated class actionfiled in the United States District Court for the EasternDistrict of New York, styled "Ann M. Marcoux, et al., v.American Airlines Inc., et al."

While a class has not yet been certified, the lawsuit seeks onbehalf of all of the Company's flight attendants or varioussubclasses to set aside, and to obtain damages allegedlyresulting from, the April 2003 Collective Bargaining Agreementreferred to as the Restructuring Participation Agreement (RPA).The RPA was one of three labor agreements the Companysuccessfully reached with its unions in order to avoid filingfor bankruptcy in 2003.

In a related case, styled "Sherry Cooper, et al. v. TWAAirlines, LLC, et al.," also in the United States District Courtfor the Eastern District of New York, the court denied apreliminary injunction against implementation of the RPA on June30, 2003.

The Marcoux suit alleges various claims against the Union andCompany relating to the RPA and the ratification vote on the RPAby individual Union members, including: violation of the LaborManagement Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA) and the APFA'sConstitution and By-laws, violation by the Union of its duty offair representation to its members, violation by the Company ofprovisions of the Railway Labor Act through improper coercionof flight attendants into voting or changing their vote forratification, and violations of the Racketeer Influenced andCorrupt Organizations Act of 1970 (RICO).

The suit is styled "Marcoux et al v. American Airlines Inc. etal, case no. 1:04-cv-01376-NG-KAM," filed in the United StatesDistrict Court for the Eastern District of New York, under JudgeNina Gershon.

ASSOCIATED ESTATES: OH Court Yet To Decide on Summary Judgment--------------------------------------------------------------The Franklin County, Ohio Court of Common Pleas has yet to ruleon Associated Estates Realty Corporation's motion for summaryjudgment in the class action filed against it, over itsSuredeposit program.

On April 14, 2002, Melanie and Kyle Kopp commenced an actionagainst the Company, seeking undetermined damages, injunctiverelief and class action certification. The Suredeposit programallows cash short prospective residents to purchase a bond inlieu of paying a security deposit. The bond serves as a fund topay those resident obligations that would otherwise have beenfunded by the security deposit.

Plaintiffs allege that the non-refundable premium paid for thebond is a disguised form of security deposit, which is otherwiserequired to be refundable in accordance with Ohio's Landlord-Tenant Act. Plaintiffs further allege that certain pet depositsand other non-refundable deposits required by the Company aresimilarly security deposits that must be refundable inaccordance with Ohio's Landlord-Tenant Act.

On January 15, 2004, the plaintiffs filed a motion for classcertification. The Company subsequently filed a motion forsummary judgment. Both motions are pending before the Court.

ATF FITNESS: PA Attorney's Office Launches Forfeiture Complaint---------------------------------------------------------------At the request of the United States Food and Drug Administration(FDA), the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Western District ofPennsylvania filed a Complaint for Forfeiture against $13,500worth of adulterated and misbranded dietary supplementcontaining ephedrine alkaloids that were located at ATF FitnessProducts, Inc. (ATF) in Oakmont, PA. The U.S. Marshals seizedthe products in response to a warrant issued by the court.

The products seized include SciFit Procut lots 18822, 16312,16918, 16834, and 19023 and Thermogen II lot 18981 in anassortment of cases and bottles valued at $13,500. The seizurefollows an FDA investigation that determined the products eithercontained prohibited ephedrine alkaloids or claimed to containephedrine or ephedrine alkaloids but did not.

Under the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, FDA may remove a dietarysupplement from the market if it presents a significant orunreasonable risk of illness or injury when used according toits labeling or under ordinary conditions of use, if noconditions of use are suggested or recommended in the labeling.On February 11, 2004, FDA made such a finding for dietarysupplements containing ephedrine alkaloids. On April 12, 2004,FDA's final rule prohibiting the sale of dietary supplementscontaining ephedrine alkaloids went into effect. Prior to thefinal rule, the agency notified firms manufacturing andmarketing dietary supplements containing ephedrine alkaloids ofits intent to issue a final rule prohibiting their sale.

The Act also prohibits firms from marketing dietary supplementsthat contain label information that is false or misleading suchas claiming to contain ingredients that are not actuallypresent. Under the Act, FDA may remove such products from themarket because they are misbranded. FDA is committed topromoting and protecting the public health by taking actionagainst unsafe products and products that make false andmisleading claims.

AUDIBLE INC.: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Suits in NJ--------------------------------------------------------------Audible, Inc. faces several securities class actions filed inthe United States District Court for the District of New Jersey,filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock fromNovember 2,2004 to February 15,2005.

The class action lawsuits were filed on behalf of purchasers ofthe securities of Audible, Inc., seeking to pursue remediesunder the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Complaintsallege that defendants Audible and certain of its officersreported increased revenues and earnings, growth that wouldcontinue as the Company capitalized on increasing demand for itsproducts and a growing customer base.

Unbeknownst to investors, however, throughout the Class Period,defendants' representations about the Company's operations, madein Audible press releases and elsewhere, were materially falseand misleading because they failed to disclose that theCompany's heady growth could not continue without materialinvestments in expensive strategic initiatives that wouldseverely erode the Company's earnings in the foreseeable future;and the Company was about to embark on expensive strategicinitiatives that would constitute a material risk to theCompany's growth and its stock price.

On or around February 15, 2005, after the close of trading,Audible announced that in 2005 it would be undertaking severalinitiatives requiring substantial investments in infrastructure,new business units and marketing, among other areas, and thatthese initiatives would depress earnings and cash flow at leastuntil 2006. As a result, the price of Audible common stockplummeted, falling from $26.70 per share on February 15, 2005 to$17.32 on February 16, 2005, a one-day decline of 35%, onunusually heavy trading volume of 20.9 million shares. Prior tothis disclosure, defendants Katz sold 150,000 Audible shares forgross proceeds of $3,675,000, while defendant Kaplan sold125,000 shares for gross proceeds of $3,062,500 in the Company'ssecondary offering on November 18, 2004.

BRISTOL-MYERS: NY Judge Cuts Attorney's Fees in Securities Case---------------------------------------------------------------A federal judge in Manhattan has cut in half a request forattorney's fees in In re Bristol-Myers Squibb SecuritiesLitigation, 03-2251, which resulted in a $300 millionsettlement, the New York Law Journal reports. In awarding $12million in attorney's fees, Southern District Judge Loretta A.Preska wrote, "It is not thirty times more difficult to settle athirty million dollar case as it is to settle a one milliondollar case."

New York's Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman and Boston'sBerman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo had asked for 7.5percent of the settlement amount, or around $22 million, forserving as co-lead plaintiffs' counsel in a suit againstpharmaceutical giant Bristol-Myers over its $2 billioninvestment into biotechnology company ImClone. The suit had alsoalleged that improper accounting practices by Bristol-Myers ledto a restatement of earnings in 2002.

The suit was dismissed last March, a decision that had beenunder appeal. Bristol-Myers though agreed to the settlement inJuly, then shortly after that settlement, the company settledfor $150 million an action brought by the U.S. Securities andExchange Commission in New Jersey federal court. According toJudge Preska's ruling, the case "fell along the low end of thecontinuum of risks" for the plaintiffs' lawyers and noted inparticular that the statements about ImClone at issue in thecase were in the public record as were the restatements.

Furthermore, the judge pointed out in her ruling, "Lead counselmerely drafted complaints setting out roughly chronologicallythe material in the public record and alleging Defendant'sknowledge and scienter. Neither the facts nor the legal andaccounting theories were complicated. Among securities classactions, this case as a whole was neither unique nor complex,"the New York Law Journal reports.

Judge Preska also said the plaintiff lawyers' fees should belowered, since the attorneys benefited from the existence of anSEC action based on similar facts.

CINCINNATI GAS: Asks OH Court To Dismiss Moscow Residents' Suit---------------------------------------------------------------The Cincinnati Gas and Electric Company asked the United StatesDistrict Court for the Southern District of Ohio to dismiss aclass action filed against it by a citizen of the Village ofMoscow, Ohio, the town adjacent to the Company's Zimmer Station.

The suit seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief againstthe Company for alleged violations of the Clean Air Act, theOhio State Implementation Plan, Ohio laws against nuisance andcommon law nuisance.

Moscow resident Danny Freeman filed the suit, which purports torepresent residents in Moscow and nearby communities, includingPendleton County, Kentucky. The suit charges that the Zimmerplant in Moscow regularly emits dangerous levels of fineparticulates (soot) that can cause serious health problems.Furthermore, the suit charges that the smokestack at the plantemits mercury, lead, arsenic and cadmium onto surroundingproperties, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (November19,2004) reports.

"These illegal and wrongful air emissions result from frequentpreventable equipment breakdowns as well as from day-to-dayoperations of the facility, including its coal-fired boiler, airemission control equipment and materials handling," the suitsaid. The suit claimed that wind patterns have caused smoke toblow down on Mr. Freeman's property and that the Ohio EPA hasfailed to cite the plant for documented opacity violations.

The suit is styled "Freeman v. Cincinnati Gas & ElectricCompany, case no. 1:04-cv-00781-SJD," in the United StatesDistrict Court for the Southern District of Ohio, under JudgeSusan J. Dlott.

CRYO-CELL INTERNATIONAL: Fairness Hearing Held For FL Suit Pact---------------------------------------------------------------The United States District Court for the Middle District ofFlorida held a fairness hearing for the settlement of theconsolidated securities class action filed against Cryo-CellInternational, Inc., certain of its current and former officersand directors and two accounting firms who previously auditedthe Company's consolidated financial statements.

Ten complaints were initially filed, alleging violations offederal securities laws, including improper recognition ofrevenue in the consolidated financial statements presented incertain public reports of the Company. On October 22, 2003, allten complaints were consolidated (Case No. 03-CV-1011). OnFebruary 17, 2004, the court appointed lead plaintiffs. OnApril 27, 2004, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.The amended complaint generally seeks, among other things,certification of a class of persons who purchased the Company'scommon stock between March 16, 1999 and May 20, 2003 andunspecified damages.

The parties have signed a formal stipulation of settlement tosettle the litigation. The settlement remains subject toapproval by the United States District Court for the MiddleDistrict of Florida, and a fairness hearing was held on February25, 2005. The proposed settlement, which totals $7 million,includes a payment of $4 million, which would be paid by thecarrier of the Company's former auditors, subject to itsapplicable deductible. In addition, the Company's insurancecarrier would pay $3 million on the Company's behalf under itsdirectors' and officers' insurance policy, subject to itsmaximum deductible of $175,000.

The settlement, in which DuPont agreed to pay at least $107.6million, was described by the judge as "a very shrewdly andcompetently organized proposal and it seems to be a veryunprecedented action by a huge corporate defendant." Also, thejudge noted that the settlement was finalized without anyevidence that perfluorooctanoic acid, known as PFOA or C8,caused any disease.

As previously reported in the August 23, 2004 edition of the helawsuit was filed in August 2001 on behalf of residents livingnear the plant, located on the Ohio River about 7 milessouthwest of Parkersburg, who said their drinking supply wascontaminated by ammonium perfluorooctonoate (aka C8, C-8, PFOA,APFO, FC143, FC-143, utilized in the manufacture of Teflon).

DuPont, which has vehemently denied any wrongdoing, said inSeptember that it decided to enter into the agreement because ofthe time and expense of litigation, AP reports. Under theagreement, blood tests will be conducted on current customers ofsix area water districts in Ohio and West Virginia, formercustomers of those suppliers, and residents with private wells.

In addition the settlement, also calls for Wilmington, Delaware-DuPont, to provide the water utilities with new treatmentequipment to reduce PFOA in water supplies at an estimated costof $10 million. The company also is to fund a $5 millionindependent study to determine if PFOA makes people sick andpays $22.6 million in legal fees and expenses for residents whosued.

As the settlement was approved, Larry Janssen, the lead attorneyfor DuPont told Forbes, "At the state of where we are and whatwe know, it was premature to go to court. It would have justbeen an adversary proceeding. I think DuPont stepped up to putthe matter back where it should be: before scientists."

Ultimately DuPont could be forced to spend another $235 millionon a program to monitor the health of residents who were exposedto the chemical, according to the agreement. "I've never seen aclass-action settlement of this magnitude, which specificallyaddresses real-life health concerns of class members in themanner that this settlement will do," plaintiffs' attorney,Harry Deitzler told AP. "We set out to find the truth on C8 andas a result of this settlement we will find the truth."

Even with the settlement, legal experts still pointed out thatparticipation in the lawsuit does not rule out future litigationagainst DuPont if the scientific panel finds C8 harmful.

HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL: Asks NJ Court To Okay ERISA Suit Pact--------------------------------------------------------------Honeywell International, Inc. asked the United States DistrictCourt for the District of New Jersey to approve the settlementfor a class action filed against it and several of its currentand former officers and directors.

In September 2004, Honeywell reached an agreement in principleto settle this matter for $14 million plus an agreement topermit Savings Plan participants greater diversification rights.The settlement will be paid in full by Honeywell's insurers.Court approval is expected in 2005.

LEE MEMORIAL: FL Resident Launches Lawsuit Over Lien Practices--------------------------------------------------------------Fort Myers resident Scott Whitaker filed a lawsuit seeking classaction status against Lee Memorial Health System, saying thathis right to equal protection and due process were violated whenthe system refused to bill his health insurance company after aserious auto crash in 2003 and instead is going after hissettlement money, the News-Press.com reports.

Fort Myers attorney Joseph Fuller, one of four lawyers fightingthe issue on a statewide level, told the News-Press "Why is hepaying premiums for health insurance? Lee Memorial is takingmoney (it's) not entitled to, and that's money out of thepatient's pocket. This is bad public policy."

Mr. Whitaker, 29, was hospitalized for three days after hisSeptember 14, 2003, crash and racked up close to $50,000 inmedical bills. He has health insurance under Blue Cross BlueShield of Florida. The insurer, under contract with LeeMemorial, would pay less perhaps less than half than thesystem's full price. The suit states that Lee Memorial, whichalready collected $12,000 under Mr. Whitaker's personal injuryprotection auto benefits, placed a lien for an additional$37,328 against Mr. Whitaker's $25,000 and $600,000 uninsuredmotorist policies.

Neal Sword, system director of business operations, told theNews-Press even as administrators are rethinking the collectionmethod in light of the negative publicity it generates and theincreasing legal costs that tend to cancel out gains, healthsystem officials still defend the practice. In theory, however,Mr. Sword said it is absolutely fair that the hospital tries tocollect as much of its expenses as possible, especially when themoney is legally available, because most of the time thehospital barely breaks even on these cases.

Any settlement Mr. Whitaker and his attorneys try to get wouldbe based upon the hospital's full ticket price, Mr. Sword said."why should Lee Memorial recoup less than that while the patientwalks away with all of it? . If they only claimed what wascovered but using full charges, and if they collect fullcharges, we want that money. We're the people, believe it ornot, who negotiate what's fair, keeping in mind we have toprotect the hospital's financial interests. Some people don'tthink that's fair; I think it is fair," he told the News-Press.

The lawsuit, which was filed in U.S. District Court, Fort MyersDivision, calls the practice discriminatory. Though LeeMemorial, by law is allowed to place liens on settlements to payfor medical care Mr. Whitaker's lawyers say the law was designedto protect hospitals when patients are insolvent or indigent soproviders would not be reluctant to treat them. The lawsuitalso contends, "There is no public or legislative purpose, orany reasonable or rational basis for (Lee Memorial) todiscriminate against (Mr. Whitaker) or other similarly situated,insured, non- indigent patients, by charging higher amounts ofhealth care services only because such patients have insuranceclaims for injuries caused by third parties."

Scott Weinstein, another of Whitaker's lawyers, who estimatesthe class action suit, if accepted, will include thousands ofpeople, told the News-Press while his client has coverage tohandle his bills, many patients don't, and someone needs to stophospitals from taking money out of people's pockets when theyhave health insurance. He added, "A lot of times, the patientends up with nothing, no pain and suffering and (the hospitals)get it all. Then the lawyers don't want to take the case and LeeMemorial walks away with everything. We want a declaration theycan't do that anymore."

LOWE'S COMPANIES: Hundreds Join Overtime Wage Complaint in PA------------------------------------------------------------- Hundreds of people in the state have joined a local class-actionlawsuit against a home improvement store chain Lowe's CompaniesInc. for allegedly violating the Fair Labor Standards Act andPennsylvania's Minimum Wage Act by withholding overtime paymentsto employees, the Scranton Times reports.

Originally filed by Barbara Evans of Clarks Summit and RaymondJ. Berry of Scranton in U.S. District Court, the suit allegesthe violations occurred at stores the company operates inPennsylvania, including Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse onViewmont Drive in Dickson City. Lowe's, which operates at least36 stores in Pennsylvania, is based in Mooresville, N.C. andoperates in more than 1,000 stores in 48 states.

Attorney Mary Walsh-Dempsey, a Scranton lawyer who representsMrs. Evans and Mr. Berry, told the Scranton Times the plaintiffsinclude 550 people, who had supervisory positions at Lowe'sstores in the state. Plaintiffs in the case signed on betweenMarch 11, 2000, and September 20. Some of the plaintiffs,including Mr. Berry, still work for Lowe's, Mrs. Walsh-Dempseysaid. All the instances alleged in the case, which was grantedclass action status by U.S. District Judge A. Richard Caputolast June, precede the change in federal overtime regulations in2004.

The suit states that Lowe's pays department managers andassistant department managers salaries, while cashiers, sales,stocking and shipping employees earn hourly wages. The suit alsocharges that the department managers and assistants hadvirtually no administrative responsibilities and assistantdepartment managers do many of the same tasks as hourly workers.

The suit also charges that Lowe's led department managers andassistant managers to believe they were not entitled to theirfull salaries if they worked less than 40 hours a week. But, thecompany bypassed hourly workers for overtime work, which wasshifted to salaried employees, it charges. In addition, Lowe'srequired salaried employees to work overtime and perform non-managerial tasks, the suit alleges.

Mrs. Evans worked at Lowe's between October 1996 and February2003, initially working as a cashier before being promoted in1997 to assistant department manager and had to work overtimefor half her regular salary rate, the suit states. She requestedand received a transfer to an hourly position in September 2002,it adds.

On the other hand, Mr. Berry took a sales position at Lowe's inOctober 1996 and was named assistant department manager in May1999, he was also, according to the suit required to worksubstantial overtime at half his pay rate and was transferred toa position with hourly pay in February 2002.

Eventually, Mrs. Evans and Mr. Berry inquired about how theirsalaries and overtime pay were calculated, but they neverreceived clear explanations, the suit charges.

In May, Lowe's unsuccessfully tried to have the suit dismissed,claiming that management-level employees had agreed to thearrangement described as a Salaried Plus Overtime Plan. JudgeCaputo said it was unclear whether employees understood theplan.

MAMMA.COM INC.: Denies Allegations in NY Securities Fraud Suits---------------------------------------------------------------Mamma.com Inc. (NASDAQ:MAMA) faces several securities classactions filed in the United States District Court for theSouthern District of New York on behalf of purchasers ofMamma.com Inc. (NASDAQ:MAMA) publicly traded securities duringthe period between March 2, 2004 and February 15, 2005.

The complaints charge Mamma.com and certain of its officers anddirectors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of1934. The complaints allege that during the Class Period,defendants caused Mamma.com's shares to trade at artificiallyinflated levels through the issuance of false and misleadingfinancial statements. As a result of this inflation, Mamma.comwas able to complete a private offering, raising proceeds of$16.6 million on the sale of stock and warrants in June 2004.

The Company, in a statement, said "Last week, lawsuits seekingclass action status were filed in federal district court inManhattan. The complaints that were filed contain claims basedon unsubstantiated rumors and newspaper reports. The Companybelieves that the claims are frivolous and without merit, and itintends to defend itself vigorously. The Company's management isunaware of any wrongdoing by the Company, its Board or itsofficers, and it is confident that the Company, its board andits officers have complied with all applicable securities laws."

The AED may continue to display a "connect electrodes" messageand may not analyze the patient's heart rhythm even when theelectrodes are properly connected. Failure to analyze thepatient's heart rhythm will inhibit defibrillation, if it isneeded. This action affects 1,924 first-generation LIFEPAK 500AEDs that were manufactured in 1997, which representsapproximately 1 percent of LIFEPAK 500 AEDs currently in useworldwide. This action does not affect any other LIFEPAK 500AEDs currently produced, or any other LIFEPAK product.

Medtronic has received 54 incident reports with this specificgroup of LIFEPAK 500 AEDs, including eight instances where itmay have prevented patient resuscitation, which corresponds toless than 1 percent of patient uses. In addition, a recentlycompleted theoretical engineering analysis estimates that thisissue may occur on up to 8 percent of patients.

Medtronic distributed notices via certified mail on Feb. 3,2005, to customers who purchased AEDs in this group of devices.The company will update or upgrade customer devices at no chargeby March 31, 2005. The affected AEDs may remain in service andcustomers are currently being contacted with recommendations foruse and replacement schedules. Only certain monophasic LIFEPAK500 AEDs manufactured in 1997 are included in this action.Customers with further questions about this issue should call 1-877-873-7630 or visit www.medtronic-ers.com/500 to determine iftheir device is included in the action.

Medtronic is voluntarily recalling the affected AEDs. The U.S.Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has been apprised of thisaction. FDA classified this action as a Class I recall. The FDAdefines Class I as a situation in which there is reasonableprobability that the use of or exposure to the product willcause serious adverse health consequences or death.

The LIFEPAK 500 is used by first responders such asfirefighters, police and others trained in CPR/AED use and arefirst to arrive at the scene of a cardiac incident but do nothave significant medical training. Medtronic, Inc.,headquartered in Minneapolis, is the world's leading medicaltechnology company, providing lifelong solutions for people withchronic disease. Its Internet address ishttp://www.medtronic.com.

NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Judge Refuses To Appoint Mediator For SC Crash----------------------------------------------------------------A federal judge refused to appoint a mediator to settle claimsbetween a railroad company and Graniteville residents who wereaffected by a deadly chlorine leak and freight train crash lastmonth, the Associated Press reports.

More than 20 lawsuits, ranging from personal injury to wrongfuldeath, have been filed since the January 6, 2005 accident. Aspreviously reported in the January 11, 2005 edition of the ClassAction Reporter, Nine people died from the toxic cloud and about250 were hurt as a Norfolk Southern freight train crashed into aparked train on January 6, 2005 in Graniteville, South Carolina.The Norfolk Southern freight train was carrying chlorine gas,when it struck a parked train about 2:30 a.m. at an AvondaleMills facility in this textile town near the Georgia line.Thirteen cars were derailed. Most of the injured were treatedfor respiratory ailments and released, authorities said. Atleast 46 people remained in the hospital, including 13 who werein critical condition.

Norfolk Southern attorneys had asked U.S. District JudgeMargaret Seymour to appoint a "global mediator" to help settleclaims between residents who have filed lawsuits as well asthose who have not, but the judge said that was out of thecourt's jurisdiction. In addition, the judge also refused togrant a stay requested by the railroad's attorneys and said,"The railroad is free to settle claims with whomever," but it'snot appropriate for the court to "intervene and sanction" asettlement when a person has not filed suit.

Norfolk Southern attorney Richard Willis told AP, the companywanted the judge's advice in the mediation process and wanted toget the "settlement ball rolling." He also noted that thecompany already had purchased office space in Graniteville tomeet with residents and would pay for the appointed mediator.Attorney Claire Xidis argued against the request saying, "We'rejust concerned that people are being misled."

More than 500 cases between residents and the railroad companyhave been settled but the company expects to see between 2,500and 5,000 claims involving personal injury and property damage,Mr. Willis said. About 250 to 500 claims are expected to bepersonal injury with about 20 to 30 very serious, he adds.

Plaintiffs' attorneys said the railroad already was engaged inan "aggressive campaign" to settle claims with residents,according to a couple of attorneys, the railroad has tried tocontact their clients without first getting in touch with theattorneys.

Mr. Willis points out that may have happened because AvondaleMills, the textile company located just a few hundred feet fromthe crash site, had asked the railroad company to contact some70 employees who have not returned to work to encourage them todo so. Six workers on the overnight shift at the plant died frominhaling chlorine fumes, AP reports.

NORTHWEST AREA: Appeals Court Upholds Portion Of Yakima Lawsuit---------------------------------------------------------------In a recent ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, apart of a lawsuit filed against a charity that aims to reducepoverty in struggling communities has been revived, theAssociated Press reports.

Originally, the suit had accused the St. Paul, Minnesota-basedNorthwest Area Foundation of breach of contract and sought $1.25million that volunteers in Central Washington's Yakima Valleycontend they were promised to develop a plan to reduce povertyin the community.

In August 2003, U.S. District Judge Edward Shea in EasternWashington granted the charity's motion to dismiss the suit. Theplaintiffs though appealed to the federal appeals court, whicheventually lead to the February 18 ruling by the appeals courtthat upheld the lower court's decision to dismiss the breach-of-contract claim, which had cited that no contract was formed.

The appeals court, however said that the lower court should nothave dismissed the entire complaint. The court's ruling furtherstates, the plaintiffs had alleged that the foundation"specifically, repeatedly, and in writing assured them it wouldallocate a specific sum of funds and a specific amount ofresources to the planning process." The court further states,"The allegation is undisputed that plaintiffs relied on thisassurance, and from the pleadings, it appears that this reliancewas reasonable. Thus, it is possible for the plaintiffs torecover in a limited manner for incidental costs such as travel,child care, and time off work."

The Northwest Area Foundation was established in 1934 by agrandson of James J. Hill, the founder of the Great NorthernRailway. It is committed to fighting poverty in the eight statesthat were served by the railroad namely Washington, Oregon,Idaho, Montana, the Dakotas, Minnesota and Iowa. Under itsCommunity Ventures program, the foundation has been seeking toidentify about 16 communities to participate in a 10-year, $150million intensive anti-poverty program.

In 2001, the foundation approached people in the Yakima Valleywith plans to help reduce poverty in the region, which issometimes called the nation's fruit bowl. The area is hobbled byhigh unemployment, low-paying farm jobs and limited educationalopportunities.

Farmworker Julio Romero, a Mexican immigrant from Guadalajara,who became a U.S. citizen in 1996, signed on to help bringtogether people of various racial and ethnic backgrounds andeconomic classes to develop their own comprehensive, regionalanti-poverty plan. However, in 2002, the Northwest AreaFoundation abruptly pulled the plug on its offer, citing thatthe valley was too large and too divided to develop a unifiedproposal in a timely manner.

Though there were never any guarantees that the Yakima Valleyproposal would be accepted by the foundation, Mr. Romero, whowas represented by Seattle attorney Matthew Metz, still filedsuit as the lead plaintiff in a proposed class-action lawsuit,contending that the foundation should pay $1.25 million for theproposal's development.

OGE ENERGY: Hearing on KS Gas Suit Certification Set April 2005---------------------------------------------------------------Class certification hearings for two similar class actions filedagainst various subsidiaries of OGE Energy Corporation is setfor April 1,2005 in Kansas District Courts. The suits also nameas defendants other natural gas companies. The subsidiariesnamed in the suit are Oklahoma Gas & Electric Company (OG&E) andEnogex, Inc.

On September 24, 1999, various subsidiaries of the Company wereserved with a class action petition filed in United StatesDistrict Court, State of Kansas by Quinque Operating Company andother named plaintiffs, alleging mismeasurement of natural gason non-federal lands.

On April 10, 2003 the Court entered an order denying classcertification. On May 12, 2003, Plaintiffs (now Will Price,Stixon Petroleum, Inc., Thomas F. Boles and the Cooper ClarkFoundation, on behalf of themselves and other royalty interestowners) filed a motion seeking to file an amended petition andthe court granted the motion on July 28, 2003. In this amendedpetition, OG&E and Enogex Inc. were omitted from the case. Twosubsidiaries of Enogex remain as defendants.

The Plaintiffs' amended petition alleges that approximately 60defendants, including two Enogex subsidiaries, have improperlymeasured natural gas. The amended petition reduces the claimsto:

(1) mismeasurement of volume only;

(2) conspiracy, unjust enrichment and accounting;

(3) a putative Plaintiffs' class of only royalty owners; and

(4) gas measured in three specific states.

On May 12, 2003, the Plaintiffs (same as those in Price I above)filed a new class action petition (Price II) in the DistrictCourt of Stevens County, Kansas, relating to wrongful Btuanalysis against natural gas pipeline owners and operators,naming the same defendants as in the amended petition of thePrice I case. Two Enogex subsidiaries were served on August 4,2003.

The Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of only royalty ownerseither from whom the defendants had purchased natural gas ormeasured natural gas since January 1, 1974 to the present. Theclass action petition alleges improper analysis of gas heatingcontent. In all other respects, the Price II petition appears tobe the same as the amended petition in Price I.

Representing the company are Jim H. Goering and Timothy B.Mustaine of Foulston Siefkin LLP- Wichita, 700 Bank of AmericaCenter, 100 North Broadway, Wichita, KS 67202 by Phone:316-291-9709 by Fax: 316-267-6345, by E-mail:jgoering@foulston.com or tmustaine@foulston.com.

OKLAHOMA: Attorney Lodges Suit V. Town's Unapproved Ordinances--------------------------------------------------------------A class action lawsuit has been initiated against the Town ofDickson in Oklahoma for allegedly falling to re-codify or re-approve their ordinances, a violation that if proven in courtcould cost the city tens of thousands of dollars, the KTEN Newsreports.

According to Oklahoma Law, every city must re-approve theirordinances or laws every 10 years. They then place the copies inthe county law library and with the county clerk. If this isn'tdone, the maximum fine can only be $50.

While researching a local doctor's $389 speeding ticket, anattorney found that the Town of Dickson hadn't done that sinceNovember of 1992.

The class action suit aims to get everyone's money back beyondthe $50 fine since November of 2002. According to attorneyDavid Pyle, "If the Town of Dickson wants to impose these fineson the people who break the law, shouldn't the Town of Dicksonhave to follow the law in order to impose those fines?"

However, the Town of Dickson disputes the allegation and showedKTEN documents where they followed procedure in August of 2002.Dickson Police Chief, William Thomas, even told KTEN that hetook the correct papers to the courthouse for them to be posted.

PACIFICARE HEALTH: Trial in Managed Care Suit Set September 2005----------------------------------------------------------------Pacificare Health Systems, Inc. continues to face a multi-district litigation coordinated for pre-trial proceedings in theUnited States District Court for the Southern District ofFlorida, styled "In Re Managed Care Litigation."

Dr. Dennis Breen, Dr. Leonard Klay, Dr. Jeffrey Book and severalother physicians, along with several medical associations,including the California Medical Association, have joined the"In re Managed Care" proceeding as plaintiffs. These physicianssued several managed care companies, including the Company,alleging, among other things, that the companies havesystematically underpaid providers for medical services tomembers, have delayed payments, and that the companies imposeunfair contracting terms on providers and negotiate capitationpayments that are inadequate to cover the costs of health careservices provided.

The Company sought to compel arbitration of all of Dr. Breen's,Dr. Book's and other physician claims against the Company. TheDistrict Court granted the Company's motion to compelarbitration against all of these claims except for claims forviolations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt OrganizationsAct, or RICO ("Direct RICO Claims"), and for their RICOconspiracy and aiding and abetting claims that stem fromcontractual relationships with other managed care companies.

On April 7, 2003, the United States Supreme Court held that theDistrict Court should have compelled arbitration of the DirectRICO Claims filed by Dr. Breen and Dr. Book. On September 15,2003, the District Court entered another ruling on several ofthe Company's motions to compel arbitration, orderingarbitration of all claims arising out of the Company's contractswith plaintiffs containing arbitration clauses. The DistrictCourt, however, also ruled that plaintiffs' RICO conspiracy andaiding and abetting claims against the Company that stem fromcontractual relationships with other managed care companies andplaintiffs' claims based on services they provided to theCompany's members outside of any contractual relationship withthe Company or assignments from its members do not need to bearbitrated. As a result, the order to compel arbitration doesnot cover part of the conspiracy and aiding and abetting claimsof all plaintiffs or any of the direct claims by a subset ofplaintiffs (non-contracted plaintiffs who provide services toour members but do not accept assignments from them).

The Company appealed the District Court's ruling to the extentit did not compel arbitration of all of plaintiffs' claims, andthe United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuitheard oral argument on this appeal on August 12, 2004. Adecision is currently pending and on September 20, 2004, theEleventh Circuit stayed the matter pending its decision.

On September 26, 2002, the District Court certified a nationwideRICO class of virtually all physicians in the country as well asa nationwide state-law subclass of physicians. On September 1,2004, the Eleventh Circuit upheld part of the class certified bythe District Court. Specifically, the Eleventh Circuit upheldthe District Court's certification of a nationwide RICO class ofphysicians, but reversed the District Court's certification ofplaintiffs' state law claims. On October 15, 2004, the Companyfiled a Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the United StatesSupreme Court seeking review of the Eleventh Circuit's decisionto uphold the nationwide RICO class. The petition was denied.The District Court has set a trial date for September 2005.

Several additional lawsuits have been filed against the Companyand the other defendants in the "In re Managed Care Litigation"by non-physician providers of health care services, such aschiropractors and podiatrists. Those lawsuits have been assignedto the District Court for pre-trial proceedings, but arecurrently stayed pending the completion of pre-trial matters inthe physician class action.

PACIFICARE HEALTH: Discovery Stayed Against PBM Company in Suit---------------------------------------------------------------Discovery has been stayed against Pacificare Health Systems,Inc.'s prescription benefit management (PBM) companyPrescription Solutions in the class action filed against it andnine other PBM companies in the Superior Court for Los AngelesCounty, California.

The case purports to be filed on behalf of members of non-Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) health plans andindividuals with no prescription drug coverage who havepurchased drugs at retail rates. The first amended complaint,filed on November 25, 2003, alleges that each of the defendantsviolated California's unfair competition law. The complaintchallenges alleged business practices of PBMs, includingpractices relating to pricing, rebates, formulary management,data utilization and accounting and administrative processes.The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and injunctiverelief.

On May 5, 2004, Prescription Solutions filed a petition tocompel arbitration. On July 9, 2004, the Superior Court grantedthe petition, holding that Irwin's request for monetary reliefcan only be resolved in arbitration and staying Irwin's requestfor injunctive relief against Prescription Solutions until anappropriate arbitration is completed. Discovery is proceedingagainst most other defendants but is stayed as to PrescriptionSolutions pending arbitration.

The second amended complaint alleges that hospitals, by placingliens on third-party recoveries obtained by members of theManaged Care Organizations, or MCOs, health plans, werecollecting more money from the members than the hospitals wereentitled to receive under their contracts with the MCOs. Thesuit further alleged that the MCOs were permitting the hospitalsto file such liens (or at least not preventing them from doingso), and the MCOs' failure to prevent this hospital practiceamounted to illegal, unfair and fraudulent conduct by the MCOsin violation of California Business and Professions Code sec.17200, et seq. The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damagesand injunctive relief.

Primus, the named defendant in the case, is a division of FMCC.It offers automobile financing services to consumers throughoutthe nation using the brand names Mazda American Credit, LandRover Credit, and Jaguar Credit, pursuant to contracts withMazda, Land Rover, and Jaguar. Plaintiffs contend that thecredit pricing policies developed and managed for Primus by FMCCand marketed using either Ford Credit, Mazda American Credit,Land Rover Credit, or Jaguar Credit discriminate by chargingAfrican Americans more for credit, for reasons not related tocreditworthiness.

The lawsuit alleges that Primus's lending policies permit andencourage a practice known as "auto finance markup" that has adiscriminatory impact on African-American plaintiffs and resultsin their paying more for credit than White consumers withcomparable credit ratings. The markup occurs when a consumerrequests a car dealer to arrange financing for a car purchase.Typically the dealer submits the consumer's credit applicationto a lender who determines an approved interest rate byexamination of the consumer's credit history. The lender thencommunicates the approved interest rate to the dealer andauthorizes the dealer, without informing the consumer, tosubjectively add percentage points to the interest rate of theirloan without regards to their creditworthiness. The dealer andthe lender then split the markup, as additional profit. Markupcosts to a consumer over the life of the loan can range fromhundreds to thousands of dollars. Studies of industry data filedin various court cases, including the case against Primus, haveasserted that African-American and Hispanic consumers are morelikely to receive the markup and that they on average pay highermarkup fess than White customers.

This case is the first to go to trial in a series of lawsuitsalleging racial discrimination in the practice of the autofinance markup. The first such suit was filed against NissanMotors Acceptance Corporation (NMAC) in 1998. NMAC subsequentlysettled out of court, as have General Motors AcceptanceCorporation and WFS Financial, Inc., as a result of similarclaims of discrimination caused by their auto finance markuppractices brought by African American consumers under theFederal Equal Credit Opportunity Act. American Honda FinanceCorporation, BankONE, Bank of America and US Bank, have eachreached tentative settlement agreements that are pending finalcourt approval. The National Consumer Law Center hasparticipated as one of the co- counsel in each of these suitsand has an appearance filed on behalf of the plaintiffs in thePrimus case.

The proceedings will begin at 9:00 a.m., on Tuesday March 1,2005, under United States District Judge Aleta A. Trauger,Middle District of Tennessee, in Courtroom 873, United StatesCourthouse, 801 Broadway, Nashville, Tennessee. Case No. 3-02-0382, Latonya Claybrooks, et al. versus Primus AutomotiveFinancial, a division of Ford Motor Credit, United StatesDistrict Judge Aleta A. Trauger, Middle District of Tennessee.

For more information, contact Stuart Rossman, LitigationDirector, at the National Consumer Law Center at 617/542-8010.

RENO HILTON: NV Supreme Court Nixes "Premature" Damages Appeal--------------------------------------------------------------The Nevada Supreme Court has dismissed as premature an appealfrom the Reno Hilton, which was slapped with a $25.2 millionpunitive damage judgment following an outbreak of a virus inmid-1996 that left hundreds of guests and employees ill, theAssociated Press reports.

In dismissing the suit, the state's high court pointed out thatthere still are pending matters in a class-action lawsuit inWashoe County District Court, and considering appeals piecemealcould result in a significantly increased caseload and confusionin the lower court. The suit against the Hilton was dividedinto two phases in district court, one consisted of a jury trialon the issues of liability and the other the class-wide punitivedamages.

The jury found that the Hilton's policy of unpaid sick leave forits employees caused the outbreak of the virus. According to thelawsuit, Hilton's policy forced the employees to work while theywere sick and that helped spread the disease that causedvomiting and diarrhea. In addition, the lawsuit said the hotelnever notified new guests about the gastrointestinal virus,which had struck more than 600 guests and 300 employees.

The second phase of the lawsuit though has not yet been heard,which will actually consist of individual hearings for eachclass member to assess compensatory damages. The Hiltonappealed the first outcome, but the state Supreme Court said thefull case must be decided in district court before it would stepin.

The plaintiffs initially sought to represent a class ofpurchasers of the Company's shares between May 7, 2003 andSeptember 20, 2004, and allege claims for securities fraud underSections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.These claims were based upon the allegation that certain publicstatements made during the period from May 7, 2003 throughAugust 9, 2004 were materially false and misleading because theyfailed to disclose that the Company's Domestic Servicesoperations had improperly accounted for accrued purchasedtransportation costs. The plaintiffs sought compensatorydamages, attorneys' fees and costs, and further relief as may bedetermined by the Court. The amended complaint seeks torepresent a class of purchasers of the Company`s shares betweenMarch 29, 2002 and September 20, 2004 based upon publicstatements made during that period.

SYCAMORE NETWORKS: NY Court Grants Tentative Approval to Pact-------------------------------------------------------------The United States District Court for the Southern District ofNew York granted preliminary approval to the settlement of theconsolidated securities class action filed against SycamoreNetworks, Inc., certain of its officers and directors and theunderwriters of its October 21,1999 initial public offering andits March 14,2000 secondary offering.

Beginning on July 2, 2001, several purported class actioncomplaints were filed. The complaints were consolidated into asingle action and an amended complaint was filed on April 19,2002. The amended complaint, which is the operative complaint,was filed on behalf of persons who purchased the Company'scommon stock between October 21, 1999 and December 6, 2000. Theamended complaint alleges claims against the Company, several ofthe Individual Defendants and the underwriters for violationsunder Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, asamended (the "Securities Act"), primarily based on the assertionthat the Company's lead underwriters, the Company and several ofthe Individual Defendants made material false and misleadingstatements in the Company's Registration Statements andProspectuses filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission,or the SEC, in October 1999 and March 2000 because of thefailure to disclose:

(1) the alleged solicitation and receipt of excessive and undisclosed commissions by the underwriters in connection with the allocation of shares of common stock to certain investors in the Company's public offerings and

(2) that certain of the underwriters allegedly had entered into agreements with investors whereby underwriters agreed to allocate the public offering shares in exchange for which the investors agreed to make additional purchases of stock in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices.

The suit also alleges claims against the Company, the IndividualDefendants and the underwriters under Sections 10(b) and 20(a)of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the"Exchange Act"), primarily based on the assertion that theCompany's lead underwriters, the Company and the IndividualDefendants defrauded investors by participating in a fraudulentscheme and by making materially false and misleading statementsand omissions of material fact during the period in question.The amended complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount.

The action against the Company is being coordinated withapproximately three hundred other nearly identical actions filedagainst other companies. Due to the large number of nearlyidentical actions, the Court has ordered the parties to selectup to twenty "test" cases. To date, along with sixteen othercases, the Company's case has been selected as one such testcase. As a result, among other things, the Company will besubject to broader discovery obligations and expenses in thelitigation than non-test case issuer defendants.

On October 9, 2002, the court dismissed the IndividualDefendants from the case without prejudice based uponStipulations of Dismissal filed by the plaintiffs and theIndividual Defendants. This dismissal disposed of the Section15 and Section 20(a) claims without prejudice, because theseclaims were asserted only against the Individual Defendants. OnOctober 13, 2004, the court denied the certification of a classin the action against the Company with respect to the Section 11claims alleging that the defendants made material false andmisleading statements in the Company's Registration Statementand Prospectuses. The certification was denied because no classrepresentative purchased shares between the date of the IPO andJanuary 19, 2000 (the date unregistered shares entered themarket), and thereafter suffered a loss on the sale of thoseshares.

The court certified a class in the action against the Companywith respect to the Section 10(b) claims alleging that theCompany and the Individual Defendants defrauded investors byparticipating in a fraudulent scheme and by making materiallyfalse and misleading statements and omissions of material factduring the period in question. The Company, the IndividualDefendants, the plaintiff class and the vast majority of theother approximately three hundred issuer defendants and theindividual defendants currently or formerly associated withthose companies have approved, and submitted to the Court forits approval, settlement and related agreements (the "SettlementAgreement") which set forth the terms of a settlement betweenthese parties.

Among other provisions, the Settlement Agreement provides for arelease of the Company and the Individual Defendants for theconduct alleged in the action to be wrongful and for the Companyto undertake certain responsibilities, including agreeing toassign away, not assert, or release, certain potential claimsthe Company may have against its underwriters. In addition, nopayments will be required by the issuer defendants under theSettlement Agreement to the extent plaintiffs recover at least$1 billion from the underwriter defendants, who are not partiesto the Settlement Agreement and have filed a memorandum of lawin opposition to the approval of the Settlement Agreement. Tothe extent that plaintiffs recover less than $1 billion from theunderwriter defendants, the approximately three-hundred issuerdefendants are required to make up the difference.

On February 15, 2005, the court granted preliminary approval ofthe Settlement Agreement, subject to certain modificationsconsistent with its opinion. The issuer defendants and theplaintiffs have until February 28, 2005 to submit a revisedSettlement Agreement which provides for a mutual bar of allcontribution claims by the settling and non-settling parties anddoes not bar the parties from pursuing other claims. Theunderwriter defendants will have until March 10, 2005 to objectto a revised Settlement Agreement.

The suit is styled "In Re Sycamore Networks, Inc. Initial PublicOffering Securities Litigation, 01 Civ. 6001 (Sas) (Dc),"related to "In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation,Master File No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)," filed in the United StatesDistrict Court for the Southern District of New York under JudgeShira A. Scheindlin. The plaintiff firms in this litigationare:

UNITED STATES: Companies Seek Dismissal Of Agent Orange Lawsuit---------------------------------------------------------------Attorneys representing major US chemical companies defendedtheir clients against charges that the companies committed warcrimes by supplying the military with Agent Orange during theVietnam War, the Reuters News Service reports.

The lawyers are asking a US District Court judge in Brooklyn, todismiss a civil suit that seeks class action status claimingthat up to 4 million Vietnamese people suffered from dioxinpoisoning due to Agent Orange.

As previously reported in the March 1, 2005 edition of the ClassAction Reporter, the civil suit, which was filed last year onbehalf of millions of Vietnamese and is regarded as a pivotaltest of the reach of U.S. courts as it considers the power ofthe president to authorize use of hazardous materials duringwar, claims that American chemical companies committed warcrimes by supplying the military with Agent Orange, whichcontained dioxin, a highly toxic substance. It seeks what couldbe billions of dollars of damages from the companies and theenvironmental cleanup of Vietnam.

Legal experts explain that if the lawsuit were successful,billions of dollars could be awarded toward an environmentalcleanup and in compensation to the Vietnamese people. Judge JackWeinstein is expected to issue a written decision in the nextfew weeks.

Outside the courtroom, Andrew Frey, an attorney for Dow, saidthe issue should be decided by "diplomatic negotiations" and notby the lawsuit, Reuters reports. He states, "We think it is upto the United States government to decide whether what it didwas wrongful and whether it should pay restitution. He addedthat international laws in the 1960s did not recognize corporateliability and the courts should be cautious about ruling oncases affecting the president's power. "The court should not besecond-guessing the president's decisions, which were made afterstudying the human health consequences and as a militaryjudgment and very likely saved a lot more lives than itinjured," he said.

Meanwhile, one of the plaintiffs, Dr. Phan Thi Phi Phi, saidthrough a translator that she had worked in an area that washeavily sprayed with Agent Orange and suffered four miscarriagesover two years during the early 1970s. She said the effect hadbeen "devastating" and that she knew of many other cases likeher own. "We did not know what happened to us, what was thecause of it, so we were very sad because we had so manymiscarriages and we could not have children," she said, Reutersreports.

Her attorney Constantine Kokkoris argued that people in Vietnamcontinued to be contaminated by eating tainted food and drinkingtainted water.

VIACOM INTERNATIONAL: Helen T. Dziuba Files Suit Over Debentures----------------------------------------------------------------The Law Office of Helen T. Dziuba initiated a class actionlawsuit on behalf of all persons who on or about August 1, 2002,tendered for redemption their 8 1/4% Senior Debentures DueAugust 1, 2022, pursuant to a Notice of Redemption sent by TheBank of New York and dated July 1, 2002. The Debentures wereoriginally issued in 1986 by Gulf + Western, Inc. and, at thetime of the purported redemption, were the obligation of ViacomInternational, Inc.

The case is entitled James & Cindy Cox v. Viacom International,Inc. & The Bank of New York. This lawsuit was filed in theUnited States District Court for Oregon, 1000 SW Third Avenue,Portland, Oregon 97204. The case number is CV02-1598-KI.

The complaint charges The Bank of New York and Viacom withviolations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaintalleges that defendants mailed the Notice of Redemption lessthan 30-days before the August 1, 2002 Redemption Date, a periodshorter than the period required for redemption by the terms ofthe Debentures and their Indenture. Plaintiffs allege that thedefendants had no legal basis for compelling redemption, butnevertheless, the Notice of Redemption sent to each Debenture-holder stated that the holder was required to tender theholder's Debenture for redemption on August 1, 2002. Thecomplaint alleges these statements were false and the Debenture-holders had no legal obligation to tender their Debentures forredemption, but could have continued to hold their Debenturesand to accrue interest at the rate of 8 1/4% per annum.

VISTEON CORPORATION: Shareholders Launch Stock Suits in E.D. MI---------------------------------------------------------------Visteon Corporation faces a shareholder class action filed inthe United States District Court for the Eastern District ofMichigan, styled "Glynn Ley, et al. v. Visteon Corp., et al."The suit was filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company'scommon stock from January 23,2004 to January 31,2005.

The complaint charges the company and certain of its current andformer officers with violations of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that theCompany failed to disclose and misrepresented the followingmaterial adverse facts known to defendants or recklesslydisregarded by them:

(1) that the Company continued to maintain unprofitable product lines, such as glass and powertrain systems, even when faced with declining North American auto sales and rising raw-material costs;

(2) that the Company was overly dependent on Ford Motor Co., as 70 percent of Visteon's revenue came from Ford;

(3) that the Company failed to adequately control costs;

(4) that the Company improperly accounted for certain retiree health care and pension benefits, and income taxes and as a result Visteon had to reverse $9 million in expense reductions for U.S. post-retirement life and health care costs and to adjust the valuation allowance on deferred tax assets by $17 million;

(5) that as a result of the foregoing the Company's financial results were in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP") and were materially inflated at all relevant times; and

(6) that as a consequence of the above, the defendants had no reasonable basis for positive statements about Visteon's financial condition.

On or around January 31, 2005, Visteon announced preliminaryfourth quarter and full year results for 2004. For the full year2004, Visteon recorded a net loss of $1.489 billion, or $11.88per share. In addition, Visteon's management has recommended thereview and preliminary restatement of the Company's financialstatements for 2002, 2003 and the first three fiscal quarters of2004. News of this shocked the market. As a result, shares ofVisteon fell $0.51, or 6.43 percent, on January 31, 2005 toclose at $7.42 per share.

The lawsuit sought to enjoin the dissolution of VornadoOperating, rescind the previously completed sale of AmeriColdLogistics (owned 60% by Vornado Operating) to Americold RealtyTrust (owned 60% by the Company) and damages. In addition, theplaintiffs claimed that the Vornado Operating directors breachedtheir fiduciary duties.

On November 24, 2004, a stipulation of settlement was enteredinto under which the Company agreed to settle the lawsuit with apayment of approximately $4.5 million or about $1 per VornadoOperating share or partnership unit before litigation expenses.The proposed settlement payment would be in addition to theliquidation distribution of $2 per Vornado Operating share orunit that Vornado Operating made to its equity-holders when itdissolved on December 29, 2004.

On January 20, 2005, the Delaware Court of Chancery postponeddeciding upon the proposed settlement and requested further butlimited information before holding an additional hearingregarding the settlement, which has been scheduled for March2005.

The complaint was brought on behalf of a purported class ofpersons in California who were sent a Memberworks, Inc. ("MWI")membership kit in the mail, were charged for an MWI membershipprogram, and were allegedly either customers of what thecomplaint contended was a joint venture between MWI and WestCorporation ("West") or West Telemarketing Corporation ("WTC")or wholesale customers of West or WTC.

WTC and West filed a demurrer in the trial court on July 7,2004. The court sustained the demurrer as to all causes ofaction in plaintiff's complaint, with leave to amend. WTC andWest received an amended complaint and filed a renewed demurrer.The Court on January 24, 2005 entered an order sustaining Westand WTC's demurrer with respect to five of the seven causes ofaction including all causes of action that allow punitivedamages.

Plaintiffs had previously filed a complaint in the United StatesDistrict Court for the Southern District of California againstWTC and West and MemberWorks Incorporated alleging, among otherthings, claims under 39U.S.C. The federal court dismissed thefederal claims against WTC and West and declined to exercisesupplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.Plaintiff proceeded to arbitrate her claims with MemberWorksIncorporated and refiled her claims as to WTC and West in theSuperior Court of SanDiego County, California as set forthabove.

Plaintiff in the state action has contended in her pleadingsthat the order of dismissal in federal court was not a finalorder and that the federal case is still pending. The DistrictCourt on December 30, 2004 affirmed the arbitration awardbetween plaintiff and Memberworks Incorporated. Plaintiff fileda Notice of Appeal on January 28, 2005.

WEST CORPORATION: Consumer Suit Referred to OH Bankruptcy Court---------------------------------------------------------------The class action filed against West Corporation and two of itsclients, styled "Brandy L. Ritt, et al. v. Billy BlanksEnterprises, et al.," has been referred to the Bankruptcy Courtof the Northern District of Ohio.

The suit was initially filed in January 2001 in the Court ofCommon Pleas in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, against two of theCompany's clients. The suit, a purported class action, wasamended for the third time in July 2001 and the Company wasadded as a defendant at that time. The suit, which seeksstatutory, compensatory, and punitive damages as well asinjunctive and other relief, alleges violations of variousprovisions of Ohio's consumer protection laws, negligentmisrepresentation, fraud, breach of contract, unjust enrichmentand civil conspiracy in connection with the marketing of certainmembership programs offered by West's clients.

On February 6, 2002, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion forclass certification. On July 21, 2003, the Ohio Court ofAppeals reversed and remanded the case to the trial court forfurther proceedings. The plaintiffs have filed a Fourth AmendedComplaint naming West Telemarketing Corporation (WTC) as anadditional defendant and a renewed motion for classcertification. One of the defendants, NCP Marketing Group, filedbankruptcy and on July12, 2004 removed the case to federalcourt.

Plaintiffs have filed a motion to remand the case back to statecourt. All defendants opposed that motion. In addition, one ofthe defendants moved to transfer the case from the United StatesDistrict Court for the Northern District of Ohio to theBankruptcy Court in Nevada. Plaintiffs objected to thetransfer. On October 29, 2004, the district court referred thecase to the Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Ohio.It is uncertain when the case will be tried.

AUDIBLE INC.: Berger & Montague Lodges NJ Securities Fraud Suit---------------------------------------------------------------The law firm of Berger & Montague, P.C. initiated a class actionlawsuit in the United States District Court for the District ofNew Jersey, on February 22, 2005, on behalf of purchasers of thesecurities of Audible, Inc. ("Audible" or the "Company")(NASDAQ: ADBL) between November 2, 2004 and February 15, 2005,inclusive (the "Class Period") seeking to pursue remedies underthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Audiblereported increased revenues and earnings growth that defendantsrepresented would continue as the Company capitalized onincreasing demand for its products and a growing customer base.Unbeknownst to investors, however, throughout the Class Period,defendants' representations about the Company's operations, madein Audible press releases and elsewhere, were materially falseand misleading because they failed to disclose that: theCompany's heady growth could not continue without materialinvestments in expensive strategic initiatives that wouldseverely erode the Company's earnings in the foreseeable future;and the Company was about to embark on expensive strategicinitiatives that would constitute a material risk to theCompany's growth and its stock price.

On February 15, 2005, after the close of trading, Audibleannounced that in 2005 it would be undertaking severalinitiatives requiring substantial investments in infrastructure,new business units and marketing, among other areas, and thatthese initiatives would depress earnings and cash flow at leastuntil 2006. In reaction to this announcement, the price ofAudible common stock plummeted, falling from $26.70 per share onFebruary 15, 2005 to $17.32 on February 16, 2005, a one-daydecline of 35%, on unusually heavy trading volume of 20.9million shares. Prior to this disclosure, certain insiders soldshares for gross proceeds of over $6.5 million.

AUDIBLE INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in NJ---------------------------------------------------------------The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a classaction lawsuit in the United States District Court for theDistrict of New Jersey on behalf of all securities purchasers ofAudible, Inc. (Nasdaq: ADBL) ("Audible" or the "Company")between November 2, 2004, and February 15, 2005 inclusive (the"Class Period").

The complaint charges Audible, Donald R. Katz, and Andrew P.Kaplan with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failedto disclose and misrepresented the following material adversefacts which were known to defendants or recklessly disregardedby them:

(1) that the Company intended to pursue new business initiatives;

(2) that the Company's growth, through these expensive initiatives, would severely undermine Audible's margins and earnings; and

(3) that as a consequence of the foregoing the Company's ambitious growth plan posed a substantial risk to the future stability of the Company and its stock price.

On February 15, 2005, Audible announced financial results forthe fourth quarter and full year ended December 31, 2004. Inaddition, the Company disclosed plans to launch several newbusiness ventures. Company's expansive and expensive plansundermined Audible's future earnings and the stock. News of thisshocked the market. Shares of Audible fell $9.38 per share or35.13 percent per share, on February 16, 2005, to close at$17.32 per share.

AXONYX INC.: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY---------------------------------------------------------------The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & RobbinsLLP ("Lerach Coughlin") initiated a class action lawsuit in theUnited States District Court for the Southern District of NewYork on behalf of purchasers of Axonyx, Inc. ("Axonyx")(NASDAQ:AXYX) common stock during the period between June 26,2003 and February 4, 2005 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Axonyx and certain of its officers anddirectors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of1934. Axonyx is a biochemical company that discovers, develops,and acquires proprietary pharmaceutical compounds and newtechnologies. The Company's compounds and technologies are usedto treat cognitive disorders, including Alzheimer's disease.Axonyx owns a portfolio of central nervous system drugs thatincludes several products in preclinical development.

The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendantsissued false and misleading statements regarding the clinicaltrials for the Company's drug Phenserine, which is used for thetreatment of Alzheimer's disease. As alleged in the Complaint,these statements were materially false and misleading becausethey failed to disclose and/or misrepresented the followingadverse facts which were known to defendants at all relevanttimes or recklessly disregarded by them:

(1) that since Alzheimer's disease is an organic disease of the mind, Phenserine clinical trials directed towards the study of cognitive function in patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease were subject to a strong placebo effect;

(2) that Phenserine could easily fail to demonstrate efficacy by cognitive measures in Phase III clinical trial patients with mild to moderate disease, while having a good chance of success in demonstrating the drug's efficacy using confirmed statistical measures for patients with progressive disease in the "beta amyloid" Phase IIB trial;

(3) that the reasonably good prospects for a successful outcome in the "beta amyloid" Phase IIB trial coupled with reasonably good chances for failure in the cognitive function based Phase III trial presented an unusual and lucrative opportunity for insiders to profitably trade on the Company's stock;

(4) that the timing of the completion and announcement of the results in the first quarter of 2005 for the Phase III study was uncoupled from that for the Phase IIB study to ensure an opportunity for insiders to engage in a form of "risk arbitrage" based on the relative risk of success presented by the two studies; and

(5) that the timing of the completion and announcement of the results of the Phase III and Phase IIB studies in the first quarter of 2005 were ordered to ensure that the study most likely to fail would be announced first, to ensure an opportunity for insiders to engage in a form of "risk arbitrage" based on the relative risk of success for the two studies.

On February 7, 2005, Axonyx announced that, despite all of itsprior positive statements about Phenserine's clinical trials,Phenserine did not achieve significant efficacy in Phase IIIAlzheimer's Disease trial. Upon this news, shares of Axonyxcommon stock fell $3.04 per share, or over 60%, to close at$1.81 per share. Prior to the disclosure of defendants' falsestatements, Axonyx's stock price traded at inflated levelsduring the Class Period, increasing to as high as $8.29 on April23, 2004, whereby the Company's top officers and directors soldmore than $2.2 million worth of their own shares.

For more details, contact Samuel H. Rudman or David A. Rosenfeldof Lerach Coughlin by Phone: 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058 or byE-mail: wsl@lerachlaw.com or visit their Web site:http://www.lerachlaw.com/cases/axonyx/.

AXONYX INC.: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY----------------------------------------------------------------The law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody initiated a class actionlawsuit in the United States District Court for the SouthernDistrict of New York, on behalf of all persons who purchased thepublicly traded securities of Axonyx Inc. ("Axonyx")(NASDAQ:AXYX) between June 26, 2003 and February 4, 2005,inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint alleges that Axonyx violated federal securitieslaws by issuing false and misleading public statements.Specifically, the complaint alleges that Axonyx misrepresentedor failed to disclose shortcomings with its experimental drugPhenserine, an acetylcholinesterase ("AChE") inhibitor intendedto curb symptoms of Alzheimer's disease. On February 7, 2005,Axonyx announced that Phenserine did not achieve significantefficacy in Phase III Alzheimer's Disease trial. On this news,Axonyx stock fell from a previous close of $4.85 per share, toclose at $1.81 per share.

For more details, contact Tzivia Brody, Esq. of Stull, Stull &Brody by Phone: 1-800-337-4983 by Fax: 212/490-2022 by E-mail:SSBNY@aol.com.

PHARMOS CORPORATION: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges NJ Securities Suit---------------------------------------------------------------The law firm of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLPinitiated a class action lawsuit in the United States DistrictCourt for the District of New Jersey, on behalf of all personswho purchased the common stock of Pharmos Corp. ("Pharmos" orthe "Company") [Nasdaq:PARS] between May 5, 2003 and December17, 2004, inclusive, (the "Class Period") against defendantsPharmos and certain officers of the Company.

The case name is Ginzburg v. Pharmos Corp., et al. The complaintalleges that defendants violated the federal securities laws byissuing materially false and misleading statements throughoutthe Class Period that had the effect of artificially inflatingthe market price of the Company's securities.

Beginning in 2001, the Company initiated Phase III trials todetermine the efficacy of Dexanabinol, its primary candidateunder development, for the treatment of traumatic brain injury.By November 2002, 400 patients had been enrolled in studiesconducted in Europe and Israel, and in July 2003, the Companyinitiated enrollment of U.S. patients in the Phase III trial.During these studies, a single dose of Dexanabinol would beadministered to a patient having suffered dramatic brain injury.To show efficacy, it needed to be demonstrated thatadministration of Dexanabinol resulted in patients regainingmore of their memory and motor skills than those who received aplacebo. The efficacy of Dexanabinol on each individual patientwas determined at six months after enrollment through theapplication of the Glasgow Outcome Scale - Extended (GOSE).

The Complaint alleges that beginning May 5, 2003, defendantsbegan a campaign of touting the efficacy of Dexanibinol, causingthe stock price to increase from $1.20 per share on May 5, 2003to as high as $5 during the Class Period.

On December 20, 2004, defendants shocked the investing publicwhen they issued a press release announcing the results from thePhase III trial of Dexanabinol. According to the press release,Dexanabinol did not show a neuroprotective effect in the PhaseIII trial consisting of 861. Essentially, the trial resultsindicated that Dexanabinol was ineffective for treatingtraumatic brain injuries. Due to this revelation, shares ofPharmos fell precipitously from $3.50 per share to $1.18 pershare, losing approximately 65% of their value.

While the Company's public investors suffered millions ofdollars in damages, Pharmos executives sold millions of dollarsworth of Pharmos stock and insured their continued positions ofemployment as a result of the Company raising over $40 millionby issuing stock to the public at inflated levels.

A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in eachWednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissionsvia e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.

Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuringnews on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of targetasbestos defendants that, according to independent researches,collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-relatedliabilities.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale orpublication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronicre-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited withoutprior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believedto be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered viae-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the samefirm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereofare $25 each. For subscription information, contact ChristopherBeard at 240/629-3300.